1. The application was considered by Council at its meeting on 28 February 2012 and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit was issued. Relevant conditions included (among others) the enclosing of the rear courtyard with roller door/s or gates; the permanent line marking of the two car spaces; and a maximum seating capacity of 60 patrons.
2. Importantly, and as a result of the objections, Council also resolved at this same meeting that its Engineering Unit undertake a traffic and car parking review of the Village Avenue Activity Centre Car Park and its surrounds including all residential streets within 150m of the centre, focusing on:
   • Any additional opportunities through line-marking and signage to improve or add to on-street parking and reduce through traffic congestion.
   • Opportunities for resident permit car parking within the review area.
   • Opportunities to improve the layout of the commercial car park to maximise the number of spaces, improve its ease of use and reduce congestion.

1. The site and adjacent land is included in the Business 1 zone under the Manningham Planning Scheme. Land to the north of the laneway is zoned Residential 1. A planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works within the Business 1 zone.
2. A permit is also required to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required on the land under Clause 52.06 (Car Parking).
3. Therefore permissions are required for the building alterations; and to reduce the onsite car parking requirement for the proposed sixty (60) seat restaurant.
4. Council also advised me of the following relevant policy settings in the Manningham Planning Scheme which I have had regard to:
   • Clause 21.09 Activity Centres and Commercial Areas;
   • Clause 22.01 Local Policy for Design and Development;
   • Clause 22.06 Local Policy Eating and Entertainment;

1. I have considered all of the submissions and I have inspected the site and the area on two occasions. The first was on a Tuesday evening about 6pm . The second inspection was on a Friday evening (9 November) between 7pm and about 8.30pm.
2. I agree with Mr Rygl that there are three main issues to address in the application:
   1. Is there sufficient on-street car parking available in the immediate area to accommodate the anticipated parking demand generated by the proposal?
   2. Is the impact of the proposed car parking reduction on the amenity of the nearby residential area reasonable?
   3. Are the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposal on the surrounding road network and intersections reasonable and acceptable?
3. Before I address each of these, I wish to briefly comment on some other aspects of the proposal. The 'use' of the land for a convenience restaurant is not in dispute - it does not need a permit. Complaints about odours and intermittent amenity concerns are not triggered by the application. There are other avenues available to pursue these complaints. Secondly, the buildings and works part of the application is non-contentious. No one has objected to the extension at single storey. With its own on-site car parking it seems to me to be a modest and reasonable building extension that will have no off-site impacts.
4. I will now deal with the key issues.

1. My context for the assessment of car parking provisions is provided by Clause 52.06 which is a state wide 'particular provision' dealing with car parking and which was most recently modified in July 2012. I am particularly mindful of the provisions of this clause in terms of reducing or waiving car parking. Clause 52.06-6 specifies that before a requirement for car parking is reduced (including reduced to zero), it is up to the applicant to satisfy Council that the amount of car parking can be justified on the basis of two things:
   • The car parking demand likely to be generated by the use.
   • Whether it is appropriate to allow fewer spaces to be provided than the number likely to be generated by the use.
2. In assessing whether it is appropriate to allow fewer spaces than likely to be generated by the use, the following factors are to be considered:
   • Any relevant local planning policy or incorporated plan.
   • The availability of car parking including:
     • ➢ Efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces.
     • ➢ Public car parks intended to serve the land.
     • ➢ On-street parking in non-residential zones and streets in residential zones specifically managed for non-residential parking.
     • ➢ On-street parking in residential zones for residential use.
   • Any adverse economic impact a shortfall of parking may have on the economic viability of an activity centre.
   • The future growth and development of an activity centre.
   • Any car parking deficiency associated with the existing use of the land.
3. In this context, both Council and the permit applicant relied on the submission (and evidence) provided by the 'Traffix Group' who had been engaged by the applicant. I was also assisted by the expert traffic evidence at the hearing provided by Mr. Robertson. I was finally assisted by the material provided to me at the hearing by Mr. Toal.
4. Based on all of that information, it seems to me that the inventory of car parking in the vicinity is as follows:
   • A sixty one space off-street car park accessed via Village Avenue and Tudor Road.
   • Eight angled off-street spaces along the High Street frontage of the centre.
   • Seven angled off-street spaces along the Tudor Road frontage of the centre.
5. On-street parking is also available within about a 5 minute walking distance as follows:
   • Village Avenue: 26 unrestricted kerbside spaces between 5:00pm and 10:00pm Friday to Sunday, with 38 unrestricted spaces available at all other times;
   • Tudor Road: 39 unrestricted kerbside spaces; and
   • High Street: 32 unrestricted kerbside spaces.
6. I noted on inspection that there are car parking restrictions on part of the south side of Village Avenue (from Nos. 4 to Nos.12) between 5pm and 10pm on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. This restriction coincides with the peak restaurant period of the week.
7. It was common ground, as ably demonstrated by Mr Toal, that not all of these restrictions were observed and seemingly enforced. I also noted on inspection that about half of the sixty-one car spaces in the activity centre were the subject of time restrictions (mainly half hour) and seemingly these were also observed more in the breach.
8. It was also common ground that the busiest times at the centre were on a Friday and Saturday evening from about 7.00pm to 9.00pm when the various eating premises were at or near capacity. I timed my inspection to coincide with this peak, visiting the centre on Friday evening November 9 from about 7.15pm onwards. That evening had a light intermittent drizzle and so it might not have been at its very 'peak', but nonetheless it gave me an insight into the competing submissions.
9. My observations more or less confirmed the two surveys of the Traffix Group who had found few or no spaces available in the off-street car park but a 'worst case scenario' of about a 25% vacancy level in nearby streets within a five minute walk. On the night that I attended, I found the vacancy levels to be much higher than this. I found a car park at the mid point of Village Avenue (north side) and walked up the hill about two minutes to the centre. Some spaces were still available closer to the centre and many more were available slightly further away. Interestingly, Curnola Avenue to the north was almost empty at this same time even though it too is only about a three minute walk away.

1. The car parking demands generated by the proposed convenience restaurant are estimated to be about 0.3 spaces per seat as specified at Table 1 to Clause 52.06. It was accepted among the parties that this was the most relevant guide.
2. For a sixty seat restaurant this suggests a demand of 18 seats. Notwithstanding the fact that the existing restaurant has no permission, it is a matter of fact that it has operated as a forty seat restaurant for some years. Thus, there is already a 'theoretical' generation of 12 spaces. In other words, of the car spaces surveyed by Traffix and of the car spaces that I observed on inspection, already a dozen of these can be said to be generated by the Ampang Tofu restaurant.
3. There is a demand differential then of six spaces generated by the request for an extra twenty seats. Two of these spaces are to be provided in the rear yard of the premises meaning there is an overall demand shortfall of four spaces.

1. Whether that shortfall is reasonable or not brings into sharp relief the 'balance' that so often has to be applied to a planning assessment. On the one hand, the evolution of this former strip shopping centre into a vibrant and successful activity centre which accommodates convenience shopping and local dining is to be celebrated. On the other hand, that success has been so apparent that nearby residents are experiencing a 'different' neighbourhood to that which they knew even a decade ago. Increased traffic and ever present car parking are a constant reminder of that evolution.
2. I completely understand the objections and frustrations of Mr Toal, Mr Loriente and others who now regularly face packed on-street parking levels on Village Avenue at least some nights every week. These levels of parking seem to be incrementally growing and they noted that on occasions car parking extends as far west as Menarra Street although this was not my observation on the Friday night that I attended.
3. However, the Tribunal has consistently held that it is best to address car parking for a centre on a more 'global' rather than a site specific basis. The Tribunal adopts the neat summary of this issue by Member Code in Bjbac Pty. Ltd. v. Kingston City Council [2011] VCAT 1944 where he commented:

The Council's case was not put on the basis of the need to take a 'centre-based' approach to parking. It should have been. The Tribunal has consistently endorsed the principle that, in higher order activity centres, this approach should be taken.......

Under a centre-based approach, development of individual sites in a centre should not be constrained by an inability to provide on site parking. The inefficiencies, disincentives and inequities associated with not granting waivers or reductions (and requiring on site parking or cash in lieu payments) have long been recognised..........

1. This principle is reflected to some extent in Council's Eating and Entertainment Premises policy at Clause 22.06 where it is policy for a 'convenience restaurant' that they:

Cluster or abut similar uses or in an activity centre or existing commercial area. It is preferred that convenience restaurants locate where there is sufficient on-site or shared car parking capacity.

1. In this context I think that the 'addendum' resolution of Council of February 2012 is most relevant . It has committed to undertaking a traffic and car parking review of the Village Avenue Activity Centre Car Park and its surrounds including all residential streets within 150m of the centre, focusing on:
   • Any additional opportunities through line-marking and signage to improve or add to on-street parking and reduce through traffic congestion.
   • Opportunities for resident permit car parking within the review area.
   • Opportunities to improve the layout of the commercial car park to maximise the number of spaces, improve its ease of use and reduce congestion.
2. Evidently, some aspects of that review are already on foot pending the outcome of this appeal, but it seems self evident that the 'success' of the centre has delivered Council with a problem. However, I agree with Mr Robertson that the actual amount of car parking is not so much the problem as is the management of that car parking. Rather than deny an activity that brings vibrancy and life to the centre and which helps provide it with its 'pulse', I think that Council needs to seriously consider some innovative management options during the review that it has now committed to.
3. Some of these options might include:
   • incentives for owners in the centre to provide on-site car parking at the rear of their premises and access from the unusually spacious rear laneway;
   • re-alignment of the seven Tudor Road spaces to make them 90º bays;
   • disincentives for staff parking in the all day spaces on the south side of the car park;
   • disincentives for any other 'all day' parkers who may have no business in the centre (but may park there all day and use the bus system to get to work);
   • greater encouragement to use available High Street car spaces on both sides of the road;
   • separate rate schemes which might levy all owners in the centre and may fund further off-street parking;
   • resident-only parking in some parts of the area;
   • time restrictions on the street system (with permit holder exemptions);
   • review of the half hour restrictions (all day) on the north side of the off-street car park which I find to be a 'curious' response in an area now well known for dining;
4. But above all, Council has to commit to monitoring an enforcing otherwise the frustrations of its residents will not abate.
5. In my view, it would be a poor planning outcome, and one not contemplated by a full consideration of planning policy, if a further restaurant were to be denied here on the basis of a lack of parking. With a demand for only another six car spaces (two of which can be provided on site); with up to about 170 spaces within a five minute walk; and with a 'worst case' attendance rate of about 75%, I am satisfied that this shortfall in car parking is reasonable in that car spaces are available in close proximity to the centre.
6. In that context, and based on my observations and consideration of submissions, I agree with Mr Robertson that the shortfall is ".... able to be accommodated without any significant effect beyond the existing amenity impact associated with the activity centre's overflow parking".
7. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is sufficient on-street car parking available in the immediate area to accommodate the anticipated extra parking demand generated by the proposal. I am also satisfied that the shortfall of car parking is reasonable in the context of a vibrant centre that is soon to be the subject of a more thorough car parking review.

1. In terms of traffic generation, Mr Robertson identified that the proposed restaurant redevelopment has a total floor area of approximately 140m². On that basis, it may generate up to seven trips in the evening peak hour and up to 85 trips per day. This means the anticipated traffic generation of seven trips during the evening peak hour equates to one vehicle trip either arriving or leaving on average every 8.6 minutes. In the view of Mr Robertson this level of traffic is minimal and can easily be accommodated on the surrounding road network and intersections without any adverse impacts.
2. In response to questions, Mr Robertson added that, in his view, the traffic issue was less critical then the parking issue especially as most of the traffic to the premises is already generated by the 40 seat restaurant. While I am also much less worried about the traffic impacts of the development, I do appreciate resident frustrations.
3. I had a close look at this on my inspection and while I can well understand the concerns of Mr Toal and others about the 'tightness' of Village Avenue, I think that some lamentable efforts at enforcement on this street has led to much of the problems. Car parking is prohibited on the south side of this road between 5.00pm and 10.00pm yet, based on my inspections and on Mr Toal's photos, this restriction is sometimes ignored. This results in a very tight 'one-way only' road width near the activity centre and it is little wonder that residents and patrons are frustrated.
4. If this were to be remedied then I am satisfied that the traffic options for the centre provide ample opportunities for reasonably safe and easy access. The centre fortuitously benefits from numerous traffic options for those wanting to access a car space. A patron can park in, and gain access via High Street (north or south), Village Avenue (east or west), Tudor Road, or even Curnola Avenue. All provide access options that are immediately available to the centre.
5. It therefore seems to me that this is a highly accessible site which can be approached from many directions. Doubtless, most traffic will come via High Street and I think it is able to cater for the traffic demands of the centre. There is a dedicated right-hand turn into Village Avenue and a left turn entrance. Traffic exiting Village Avenue can go left or right via separate lanes. There is no parking available east of the entrance way into the centre from Village Avenue.
6. I finally note that Council's engineers also had no concerns with either traffic or parking noting that (with my emphasis):

Concerns regarding the existing road width of Village Avenue and the trafficability for cars and emergency vehicles has been referred to Councils Engineering and Technical Services Unit. They have assessed the access and traffic as being safe and appropriate, however a traffic survey and parking assessment conducted by the Engineering and Technical Services Unit recommended the opportunity for further traffic and/or car parking signage near the site and noted the presence of illegally parked cars. Subsequent to objections detailing illegal parking in the area and this finding, Councils Health and Local Laws Unit have been advised.

1. It seems to me that Council is now well aware of the traffic and parking issues associated with this centre. It remains for it to devise an acceptable outcome so that an important local activity centre remains attractive while ensuring that nearby residential amenity is protected. In terms of the current application, I am satisfied that the extension of the restaurant is acceptable in its site and planning context.

1. Ultimately, I agree with Council that the proposed development and its car parking provision are satisfactory in this location. The proposed restaurant provides for an efficient use of the land and will help support the activity centre as the focus for retail, commercial, social and community activity, in accordance with Council's policies for Activity Centres.
2. That such a use might generate extra traffic and parking pressures is quite predictable. Rather than deny permission, the prudent planning approach is to plan for and accommodate that change lest residential amenity is impacted. Council still has some way to go to ensure that this balance is achieved and I would urge it to implement and enforce its supplementary recommendation as a matter of urgency.
3. It is directed that a permit be issued in accordance with the Notice of Decision (subject to a modification to the preamble to identify a 'convenience restaurant').